When it comes to the provision of business advice, I’ve previously suggested that accountants serving business clients, fall into one of four categories:

1 – It’s a no-go area: The accountant’s business experience is limited and perhaps they don’t feel that confident with the idea of providing business advice.

2 – Personal experience: The accountant is willing and able to share their own experiences of business over the years, perhaps drawn in part from working with other clients. Those accountants who have worked in (non-accountancy) businesses will also have a different type of experience to draw on.

3 – What others say: The accountant offers advice based on what they have read in books, magazines and websites and possibly what they recall from their studies and from attending seminars and conferences. However, their level of interest in developing this area of skill is much lower than their desire to keep up to date with technical knowledge.

4 – A systemised approach: The accountant has bought into a programme that assists them in adopting a structured approach to the provision of business advice and either they actively promote the service to their clients or they shy away from doing so and quit the programme.

Some commentators have provided near constant pressure over many years to encourage accountants to adopt the systemised approach. Nevertheless I understand that less than 10% of accountants in the UK have bought into the idea.  The vast majority are evidently not convinced. Why is that I wonder?

Most accountants seem to prefer one or more of the first three approaches described above. Perhaps their clients do not seem to be demanding a more formalised approach (or maybe the accountant perceives that their clients are not willing to pay for it).

What do you think?

Most lawyers only know a world in which they have to quote fees and charge for the provision of advice.

Few solicitors have the luxury of charging recurring fees to clients who come back year after year for the same recurring compliance service. Accountants, on the other hand, tend to earn much of their fees from work related to their clients’ annual accounts and tax returns (hence the term ‘recurring compliance services’).

Lawyers and accountants are also different in another way. Most solicitors typically specialise in specific areas of law and their clients know this. If you’ve been to see a divorce lawyer you wouldn’t be surprised if they recommend a colleague or third party to resolve a commercial dispute. No one would mind if a property lawyer suggested you see someone else to help you with your will. And so on. Indeed, most people seeking legal advice would prefer to see a specialist rather than the same lawyer who dealt with some completely different matter on a previous occasion.

Following on the thoughts in recent blog posts here I believe that accountants have a choice. The best ones will, in my view, specialise and niche their practices. They will focus on a specific type of clients, industry or area of work. They will not attempt to be all things to all people. They will be happy to admit when clients have issues that require expertise that is outside of their comfort zone. They will charge higher fees when they give advice on matters that do not recur each year. And they will seek out opportunities to provide this higher value advice in their specialist niche areas.

Instead of focusing on their recurring client work each year they will operate more like lawyers and they will be more profitable, more fulfilled and more in demand.  Do you agree? Let me know what you think.

The above comments follow on from recent blog posts and are taken from the final section of my contribution to a report, ‘GRF is killing the profession‘,  recently published by Bob Harper. He says it contains contributions from “leading thinkers, advisers and consultants to the accounting profession.”  (Ron Baker, Bob Harper, Dennis Howlett, Mark Lee, Mark Lloydbottom, Michael McKerlie, Finola McManus, Steve Pipe and Paul Shrimpling)

Many accountants focus on the recurring work that each client requires and the recurring fees that this will earn the practice. This is understandable upto a point.

The busier the accountant becomes the more there is a tendency to avoid opportunities to give ad-hoc special advice. And if it is provided there is a fear that if a high fee is charged this will scare the client off. And then the recurring fees will be lost.

This is a point I alluded to in yesterday’s blog post in which I noted a common reluctance among many accountants to seek specialist support when clients require advice that goes beyond the accountant’s day to day experience.

A focus on recurring work and the associated recurring fees is also doomed to change in the near future. There are an increasing number of alternative, low cost and professional alternative service providers. Those clients who perceive that all their accountants do is produce accounts and tax returns will be at risk. At the moment there is just a trickle of a move to online, cloud solutions and DIY compliance. This trickle will increase starting at the lower end but across the board as everyone looks to get more value (for which read ‘advice’) from their accountant.

Do you agree? Let me know what you think.

The above comments follow on from yesterday’s blog post and are taken from my contribution to a report, ‘GRF is killing the profession‘,  recently published by Bob Harper. He says it contains contributions from “leading thinkers, advisers and consultants to the accounting profession.”  (Ron Baker, Bob Harper, Dennis Howlett, Mark Lee, Mark Lloydbottom, Michael McKerlie, Finola McManus, Steve Pipe and Paul Shrimpling)

Accountants are naturally cautious about involving third party advisers. They don’t want to be forced to bill their clients more than last year. They also don’t want to bear the cost of seeking a second opinion.

This atitude means that some accountants muddle along and avoid admitting to clients that they have limited experience in certain areas. They allow and even encourage clients to assume that their accountant can advise on all areas of finance, business and tax. In taking this approach the accountant may take the risk of advising on specialist matters outside of their day-to-day experience.

Other accountants simply avoid advising on such issues even if they suspect that these could be to their clients’ benefit. And, despite the risk of negligence claims and of being reported to their professional body, this approach appears to pay off.

Few clients are aware of the ‘better’ advice they could be receiving. Few clients will know that their accountant’s advice is untested and based on out of date knowledge. And even fewer will be aware that their accountant actually has no first hand experience of dealing with similar problems or issues for other clients.

Why do so many accountants feel that it is a sign of weakness or incompetence to admit that they require specialist help? By way of analogy no one expects their local GP to be an expert in all areas of medicine and health. Indeed we would be pretty worried if a GP suggested we hop up on the bed so that they can open us up and have a look inside to see what’s troubling us. We expect to be referred to specialists and to different specialists for different ailments.

The best accountants operate on a similar basis. They ensure that their clients know the limits of their expertise. They have built up trust so that their clients are happy to talk to a specialist when necessary. And they have made clear to their clients that extra work and extra advice means additional fees.

What’s your approach?

I will continue this theme in my next blog post. In the meantime, if you want to get in touch with specialist tax advisers who can help you when issues arise outside of your day to day experience – simply go to the Tax Advice Network.

The above comments are taken from my contribution to a report, ‘GRF is killing the profession‘,  recently published by Bob Harper. He says it contains contributions from “leading thinkers, advisers and consultants to the accounting profession.”  (Ron Baker, Bob Harper, Dennis Howlett, Mark Lee, Mark Lloydbottom, Michael McKerlie, Finola McManus, Steve Pipe and Paul Shrimpling)

The traditional focus on recurring work and the associated recurring fees is likely to change in the near future.

There are an increasing number of alternative, low cost and professional alternative service providers. Those clients who perceive that all their accountants do is produce accounts and tax returns will be at risk. At the moment there is just a trickle of a move to online, cloud solutions and DIY compliance. This trickle will increase starting at the lower end but across the board as everyone looks to get more value (for which read ‘advice’) from their accountant.

Accountants who provide traditional tax return completion services and simple accounts preparation services are most at risk. Plenty of commentators have been saying this for a few years. I’ve long been of the view that the move to newer style service providers will not happen overnight. But it will happen.

Accountants who are losing more than a trickle of clients would be well advised to check out what the competition is promising and doing to win work away from them.  Then comes the hard question. How will you respond?

How many accountants go into practice with the intention of operating in the same way as lawyers do?

Not many I think.

What do I mean?

Well lawyers are very much transaction focused. Property lawyers advise and help facilitate property transactions. Family lawyers advise on divorce, child custody and other one-off situations. Commercial lawyers advise on business deals – and so on. When the deal is done, when the situation is resolved, the work ends. And the lawyer moves on to a new piece of work. In most cases, other than perhaps in the largest firms, each lawyer has to constantly devote time to finding new work.

Accountants are different. Due to the obligation imposed on clients to produce annual accounts and to file tax returns every year, accountants have lots of recurring work. Clients come back year after year. In fact the clients don’t go away. They often pay annual fees by monthly instalments. Accountants can anticipate that the total annual fees they earn will remain pretty constant year on year. They may lose a few clients for whatever reason but equally they will probably pick up a few new clients and it will all balance out.

The question that is rarely asked is whether accountants or lawyers are more profitable? Another related question would be whether accountants or lawyers feel more fulfilled in terms of the work they do and the extent to which they apply their training, knowledge and expertise?

The above comments are taken from my contribution to a report, ‘GRF is killing the profession‘,  recently published by Bob Harper. He says it contains contributions from “leading thinkers, advisers and consultants to the accounting profession.”  (Ron Baker, Bob Harper, Dennis Howlett, Mark Lee, Mark Lloydbottom, Michael McKerlie, Finola McManus, Steve Pipe and Paul Shrimpling).

Seth Godin is renowned for his pithy and thought provoking blog posts and books.  His most recent post is a new (to me) way of looking at the age-old ‘time vs value based’ billing argument:

“Long work is what the lawyer who bills 14 hours a day filling in forms does.

Hard work is what the insightful litigator does when she synthesizes four disparate ideas and comes up with an argument that wins the case–in less than five minutes.

Long work has a storied history. Farmers, hunters, factory workers… Always there was long work required to succeed. For generations, there was a huge benefit that came to those with the stamina and fortitude to do long work.

Hard work is frightening. We shy away from hard work because inherent in hard work is risk. Hard work is hard because you might fail. You can’t fail at long work, you merely show up. You fail at hard work when you don’t make an emotional connection, or when you don’t solve the problem or when you hesitate.

I think it’s worth noting that long work often sets the stage for hard work. If you show up enough and practice enough and learn enough, it’s more likely you will find yourself in a position to do hard work.

It seems, though that no matter how much long work you do, you won’t produce the benefits of hard work unless you are willing to leap.”

You may not record 14 hour billable days. But if you focus on how much billable time you can record on your timesheet each day you are of the same mindset.

I would suggest that Hard work, in this context, is the application of knowledge, skills and experience to solve problems and to provide valuable advice – without the need for detailed research or long advisory letters. I would stress though that it should be genuine and not guess-work or risky half baked ideas that would have benefitted from proper research.

Hard work requires discussion over the value to the client. It also means the adviser has to decide whether the agreed fee will provide sufficient reward. Sufficient to cover not just the time but also to contribute to the build up of knowledge skills and experience which put the adviser in a position to provide the advice. Thinking that all through, having the discussions and accepting the outcome is Hard work.  But it can pay very well as a result.

Do you focus on Long work or do you have a way to get paid a fair fee for doing the Hard work?

This draft agenda re a first meeting with a prospective client dates back to 2006. It’s an example of the approach I adopted when I was in practice.

I had created a number of  template agendas – I chose the most appropriate one and personalised it for each meeting. This always impressed prospects as it showed I had thought about their situation beforehand – by ref to our initial telephone conversation.

The other benefit of this template was that it contained reminders of issues I needed to cover. Better that than to have them scribbled on a pad. Notice that there is no specific point for me to talk about my practice – other than at point 5. There is little point in starting such meetings with a summary of you and your firm’s background. Instead, after the briefest of intros (especially if you have a colleague or staff member with you) encourage the prospect to talk about what’s on their mind – as prompted perhaps by some of the agenda items – it’s not set in stone, just may be helpful. The items listed may also help the prospect realise that there are more issues to consider than perhaps they had previously considered.

What else might you want to add on to such an agenda?  Looking back I think there’s something pretty obvious missing.

AGENDA

1. Introductions

2. Issues and concerns

a. Extraction of cash b. Maximising entitlement to Business Asset Taper Relief [Entrepreneur's Relief now of course] c. Potential sale in next couple of years d. Inheritance tax (business property relief)

3. Company background

a. Activities b. Annual accounting date c. Last filed accounts d. Premises and locations e. Accounts and Directors Reports

4. Attitude to risk taking

a. Tax avoidance schemes b. HMRC (Revenue) enquiries – any history? c. Investments

5. How can we help?

6. The way forwards

a. Advice required to provide peace of mind b. Terms of business and payment on account c. ‘Know your client’ paperwork

Related posts:

• Good agendas for client meetings
• Good agendas for meetings

I wonder how many readers of this blog had heard of Elaine Clark before I awarded her the ‘best overnight budget summary‘ last week?

Elaine qualified as a chartered accountant in 1988 and now and runs one of the fastest growing online accountancy practices in the UK. She established it in 2007 and has a number of associates operating their own practices under the same brand name. Indeed Elaine offers a mentoring service for those who want to establish their own practice and benefit from the leads that come from web searches and her related online engagement.

I must admit that I was initially doubtful about the name of her practice: Cheap Accounting, although I do accept that it’s very attractive for online searches. After all, no one googles to find an expensive accountant do they?!

I was always taught that ‘cheap’ went with ‘nasty’. That we should not encourage clients to choose their accountant solely by reference to price – and that a focus on being cheap encourages them to do so.  And then there is the theory that although most clients want accountancy services provided (1) fast, (2) accurate and (3) cheap – they have to choose  just 2 of the 3 .

Having discussed this with Elaine I must admit to being wrong.  I now understand Elaine’s passion and her business model. Her practice offers ‘cheap’ accounting services in that they keep costs down and run an efficient and focused service. They can do this through a reliance on computer-based book-keeping packages and other technology that allows them to operate in a very cost-effective manner.  As explained on her website: “Quality is in no way compromised. CheapAccounting operates to a set of very high service values”.

Inevitably, perhaps, most of Elaine’s clients have straight forward accountancy and taxation needs. Needs that her experienced network of CheapAccounting.co.uk accountants are well capable of addressing. However from time to time there may be a more complex tax issue which requires more specialist advice.

I am delighted to announce that Elaine has chosen my Tax Advice Network to provide tax support when required. We have agreed a working alliance which is clearly promoted on her website.

For obvious reasons I do  not give permission for just anyone to include our logo on their website. Indeed Elaine is the first person to have that authority – beyond the tax adviser members of the Network of course.

I hope that readers are sufficiently intrigued to want to check out the Cheap Accounting website. It’s very different to most accountants’ websites. It’s also popular and successful at drawing in the sort of business that Elaine is targeting. Oh, and it even tells visitors how easy it is to change their accountant. I think we could all learn something from her approach.  Let me know what you think….

I’ve long been critical of the ‘me too’ type of overnight budget commentaries. Indeed, these days ‘overnight’ is slow and many commentaries appear online within hours.

I have seen dozens of such identikit commentaries since the Chancellor sat down yesterday. Almost all contain pretty standard lists of the headline measures, cut and paste extracts from the budget press releases and sundry similar ‘commentaries’ containing the initial views of the author or a ‘senior tax partner’. There are a few that contain bog standard ‘advice’ and a few firms have provided commentaries on specific measures – although most of these note that we don’t have enough detail yet to know how the proposals will work in practice. Others reference what the writer would like to have seen or how limited the proposals are in specific situations.

If you really think it’s worth sending one out I’m an advocate of using a tailored version produced by one of the key tax publishers. (My previous thread refers: Budget night summaries – worth the effort?)

Of course there will be many more such commentaries that I haven’t seen. There’s a limit as to how many I can pick up through the email lists I am on and through links contained in tweets on twitter. Still, two very different budget commentaries stand out and deserve an award*

If you’ve come across any others that are clearly distinctive do please reference them in the comments section below and provide links if possible. Many thanks. I’m also keen to receive feedback challenging my view that the effort devoted to these overnight commentaries is a waste of time. By all means share your experiences of how and why you feel differently. Any evidence of the value would be great too.

Runner up – and with a special commendation for dividing up the announcements: Informanagement

• Budget Summary March 2011 – New tax changes announced today
• Budget Summary March 2011 – Future changes announced today
• Budget Summary March 2011 – Changes previously announced for 2011-12, now confirmed

And the winner is………

….Elaine Clark of Cheap Accounting for her blog post: Not A Budget Newsletter!

It won’t suit everyone but I love it!

* ‘Award’ in this context simply means to be acknowledged on this blog with an online link!